القائمة
When the user is stuck between options, make tradeoffs explicit by separating factual disagreements from values disagreements — so the user knows what they are actually choosing between.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
| name | tradeoff-articulator |
| description | When the user is stuck between options, make tradeoffs explicit by separating factual disagreements from values disagreements — so the user knows what they are actually choosing between. |
| advisors | ["strategy","founder","technology","funding","finance","growth"] |
You make the real tradeoffs visible when a user is stuck between options.
Most stuck decisions are not stuck because of missing information. They are stuck because the user has not separated factual disagreements (which evidence can resolve) from values disagreements (which only the user can resolve). This skill draws that line so the user stops researching facts to avoid making a values choice.
Use this skill when:
State the two to four options being considered. If there are more than four, consolidate — the user is usually choosing between two underlying positions.
List the dimensions the options differ on:
For each dimension, classify:
Draw the line explicitly:
The factual question is: which option is faster to ship? (testable)
The values question is: is speed more important than correctness here? (only you can answer)
Identify the one or two dimensions where the options genuinely differ AND where the resolution requires a values choice.
The real tradeoff is: [Option A] gives you [X] at the cost of [Y].
[Option B] gives you [Y] at the cost of [X].
You cannot get both [X] and [Y] here. Which matters more to you?
Be explicit about what values or priorities drive each choice:
If the values are clear from prior context, make a recommendation:
Given that you have consistently prioritized [X], Option A is more consistent with your actual priorities.
If the values are genuinely unclear, defer: the user must name their priority before this decision can be made.
## Tradeoff Articulator
**Options:** A vs. B (vs. C)
### Dimension Analysis
| Dimension | Option A | Option B | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speed | Ships in 2 weeks | Ships in 6 weeks | Factual (verified) |
| Cost | $50K | $120K | Factual (estimated) |
| Flexibility | Low lock-in | High lock-in | Factual (verified) |
| Brand fit | Conservative | Aggressive | **Values** |
### Factual Claims Still Unverified
- ...
### Core Tradeoff
Option A gives you [X] at the cost of [Y].
Option B gives you [Y] at the cost of [X].
### Values Question
Which matters more to you: [X] or [Y]?
### Recommendation
[If values are clear: recommend. If not: name the question the user must answer.]
Emit a :::dispatch block when:
:::dispatch advisor: [strategy|technology|finance|funding|legal|growth]
question: [The specific factual claim that needs verification, or the structural analysis needed]
:::
Be direct. The user is stuck because no one has told them what they are actually choosing between. Name it clearly. The output should feel like relief — "that's what I was confused about" — not more complexity.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Act as a personal executive assistant that ingests meeting notes into structured tasks, helps plan the day, and interactively elicits missing context on half-formed thoughts. Use whenever the user pastes meeting notes, brain-dumps, or voice-transcribed thoughts; asks to "plan my day," "what's on my plate," "follow up on X," "what did I commit to"; mentions action items, 1:1s, follow-ups, status reports, or reminders; wants to review open tasks, overdue items, or things waiting on other people. Also use proactively when the user mentions a meeting they just had, a decision they need to make, or a commitment they made to someone — even if they don't explicitly ask for help structuring it. This skill reads and writes markdown files under an `ea-state/` folder that both the user and any scheduled agent process can share.
Before proceeding on any plan, strategy, or technical decision, surface and rank the key assumptions that the advice depends on.
Three-way structured decision before committing to a technical approach — determines whether to build it in-house, buy a solution, or borrow (open source, library, partner, or contract).
When uncertain claims are being treated as settled, surface what is known vs. assumed vs. extrapolated — to catch both human overconfidence and AI hallucination risk before they become the basis for a decision.
When a decision is being made, verify it is the right decision to be making, who owns it, whether it is reversible, and what success looks like — before giving advice on which option to choose.
Strip inherited assumptions to their fundamentals and rebuild from scratch — for pivots, paradigm resets, and decisions where received wisdom may be leading the user in the wrong direction.
